Secondary Navigation

Session decision on a Moral Person

Dear brethren, Back in 1999 after coming out of the unincorporated, independent baptist church movement, and having been a member of the PRCE for about six

Message 1 of 1
, Dec 3, 2006

Dear brethren,

Back in 1999 after coming out of the unincorporated, independent
baptist church movement, and having been a member of the PRCE for
about six months, I decided to put to our Session about 15 questions
that were most important to me in proper form of church government,
business, lawful money/currency, being/wellbeing and a host of others.

I'm sure that all of you have posed similar questions to your local
sessions, as Presbyterians and Covenanters, and had similar decisions.

So for those of you who have already firmly grounded your doctrinal
positions on the subject of Moral Persons (as a court Session), I only
share this with you as information. I understand that there are
several ministers on this site, and that you may have already
addressed these questions with your congregations formerally. Perhaps
you have used more biblical references. Your Session decision may be
radically different than this decision, or only slightly different,
but those who reject the decision as totally unlawful because it was
completed by our Elders (as some might suggest are the most tyrannical
Elders that were ever discovered in the history of plant earth!),
please don't blame me for ignorantly or blindly following this
decision without a substantial amount of additional biblical references.

You have NO IDEA the amount of detailed research and effort I put into
my questions before they were submitted to the Session, nor the amount
of work my Elders did (as they have always done for me and others)
regarding this one answer on my question. Subsequent to their
decisions, we are always given a period to come back with further
questions and received detailed explanations. Most of the time, I
pick up the phone to go over my additional questions or concerns, and
usually try to prepare some Scriptural distinctions or historical
references that might reverse a decision. Nevertheless, I know what
it is like to have a decision rendered, and be so upset because it
went against my own presuppositions, that I literally gave notice I
was thereafter leaving the church.

Yep, formerally and specifically, I outlined my position and said,
"See ya, been nice knowing ya...but I'm going back to my little house
on the prairie and not going to stand for your tyrannical decision."
Within hours of my notice, an emergency Session was held, and a gentle
response was given to my hasty allegations and I was convicted in my
conscience, and by Scripture (and mostly by God's grace), that I was
wrong, Scripturally and emotionally, and thereafter humbled myself,
begged forgiveness and was subsequently blessed by the Lord beyond my
wildest dreams. I'll never forget what a fool I was and what my
covenant of membership meant to me (and does mean to me).

I'm sure all the ministers on this site spend the same amount of time
with each of their members working through questions of controversy or
questions of inquiry, and therefore you will know the work it takes to
answer sometimes just one question. The following are two of perhaps
a total of 15 questions I have posed to the Session. To be overly
critical of the lack of effort some may suggest that went into this
decision, I wish to inform you that I asked 3 additional question in
the same formal request, and the decision did not just address this
one question on a Moral Person.

I share this background because I know how much we are disliked by
other covenanters, and presbyterians in general, as I have read on
several public forums how alleged unfaithful and filled with legalism
we are, but I gentle reject these public allegations.

We are men and women just like you, and work through our questions,
concerns and answers in similar ways as you, whether you are ministers
or members of a congregation or independents. Some desire to throw
off all tyranny, or even the perception of tyranny, and submit only to
themselves as a lawful and highest court. As head of the household,
the buck stops there since there is no lawful and faithful
Presbyterian court in the world, as defined by them, in our unsettled
state of the church. Others submit to a local independent minister as
being their only lawful court. Some to Elders that are congregated
face-to-face as being an only lawful and faithful court. Others, as
myself, to Elders whether local (as when this decision was made) or
international and extraordinary. Therefore, before you judge my
questions, and my Elders response, as being unfaithful, tyrannical,
unbiblical, or whatever other labels immediately jump to your mind as
your read the decision, please take a time like I had to and work out
the Scriptures referenced in the decision, using other historical
references or formal higher court decisions.

Remember, Presbyterianism gives us the beauty to overturn a lower
Session court decision by Scripture and historical arguments or
decisions from other lawful Session and higher courts. If following
appears unfaithful and unlawful to you, whether it is because you
believed the PRCE was not a lawful Session court, then made up of 3
church officers ruling with Chris in the midst, then I agree there is
not much I can do to persuade you that this decision is not void ab
initio (void on its face). But, if you believe the court was indeed a
lawful court, firmly founded in Scripture and Presbyterian, Covenanter
government (as the PRCE constitutionally adopted the Six Terms of
Ministerial and Christian Communion March 22, 1996), then use our
biblical and church government system to overturn the decision.

If it turns into a private internet or phone campaign of how messed up
we all are at the church, then I cannot (nor will try) to address
those arguments and allegations. Better to leave me out of the
controversy and give me some alias name, like, for example, "dumb and
dummer said this or that". That way harsh words won't be attached to
either of us before the thrown of Christ, our final court.

Here is the decision on the subject...but remember from my previous
post I'm still doing my research on whether a lawful moral person (in
our case a international, extraordinary Session) can exist without a
written constitution. Sorry for all the long wind.

They were asked and answered in late July, early August, 1999.
Remember, I am only posting one of the four questions and answers.

"Walter wrote:

As a member of PRCE, I submit four questions:

1 a. What is a moral person as defined by man's law (e.g. Christian
common law, common law, canon law, law of nations, international law,
civil law, criminal law, military law, etc.) and God's law (e.g.
Scripture)?

This question depends upon a multitude of particular circumstances
which are too numerous to be presently described. A "moral person," as
regarded by man's law, may change radically over the circumstances of
time, place and national religion. For example Compare the following
questions: What did heathen Rome, at the time of Christ, consider a
moral person to be, versus, what did the heathen United States of
America in 1999, consider a moral person to be, versus, what does
heathen world international law (at least those nations who subscribe)
in 1999 consider a moral person to be? The answer to this question
goes beyond the ability and time of your elders. To answer this
question properly, it ought to be referred to a legal historian, and
we very much question whether even a council of legal historians could
give anything more than a mere doubtful opinion upon this matter.
Please let us know more specifically why you think this is relevant to
your present business dealings. Presently, we do not see this question
being crucial enough to spend hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of
hours to determine a mere conjecture about what heathen think of the
definition of a moral person. We, of course, remain quick to listen,
easy to be entreated, and humbly willing to be convinced otherwise.

The question we can determine from Scripture is What will the faithful
governments of the future millennium determine a moral person to be
and upon which principle "ought" they to act?

To this we submit the following citations for your inspection:

It may tend to cast some light on this matter, to state a few of the
differences betwixt the obligation to duty by the moral law, and that
of the church's covenants. ***The obligation of the church's covenants
is distinct from the obligation of the law. It is not independent of
the law, nor separate from it; but the obligation of the one may be
distinguished from that of the other.*** Christians are under an
obligation to perform duties, by the authority of God in his law; and
they are, at the same time, under an obligation to perform the same
duties, by their own act, whereby they have bound themselves to
practice them. ***The obligation of the law is primary and supreme;
that of the church's covenants is secondary and subordinate
thereunto.*** The obligation of vows and covenants, both as to the
matter and manner thereof, may always be examined by the rule of the
law; but that which we know to be the law of God is not, as to its
rectitude and obligation, the subject of any such examination. ***The
obligation of the law is necessary unto the very being of the rational
creature; that of our covenants is not so.*** It is impossible for
them to exist, without being under the obligation of the divine law;
but the greater part of them are not under the obligation of religious
covenants. An act of the creature is necessary to bring us under
obligation of vows and covenants; but no such act is requisite to
subject us to the obligation of the moral law. The obligation of our
covenants with God reaches to time only; but that of the law of God
extends to eternity. By the former, we bind ourselves to sincere,
though but imperfect obedience, but by the latter, we are divinely
bound to perfection. In the law, God, who is its glorious author,
binds us to obedience, by his own authority; but, by our promises,
vows and covenants, we bind ourselves to be the Lord's people, and to
serve him.

The moral law is the directing standard, by which these solemn
transactions of the church are to be regulated. The regulations of the
law, concerning these acts of the creatures, respect both the matter
of them, and the manner of their performance. As the directions of the
law respect the matter of our vows and covenants, they indispensably
require, that the things we bind ourselves to perform be agreeable to
the law, and in nothing contrary to the precepts of the word. If they
are otherwise, our vows and covenants are null and void in their
obligation; and it is sinful to fulfil them (Archibald Mason,
Observations on the Public Covenants, see www.covenanter.org, emphasis
added).

Thus, we note that all rational beings are under the law of God, and
thereby have a duty and corresponding moral obligation to covenant
publicly and socially. Generally, even heathen civil governments
recognize this fact although, as is common to tyrants, they abuse that
which is intended for their good.

The obligation of our covenants with God is also evident, from the
binding force of human contracts between man and man. It is a natural
dictate of reason, which is confirmed by the word of God, that the
promises, oaths and covenants of men with one another, oblige the
parties to fulfil them; and that their failing therein, or acting
contrary thereto, is a great evil. If our promises, oaths and
covenants with our fellow creatures, bring us under a moral
obligation, and bind us to fulfil them; must not our promises, oaths
and covenants with the most high God, contain in them a moral
obligation to perform duty to him? (Archibald Mason, Observations on
the Public Covenants, see www.covenanter.org, emphasis added).

Add to this the testimony of Thomas Sproul:

Covenanting with God is the swearing of an oath of fidelity to him. It
is the act of subjects engaging in the most solemn manner to be true
to their king. This was the import of the covenant entered into by the
kingdom of Judah at the inauguration of Joash: "And Jehoiada made a
covenant between the Lord, and the king and the people, that they
should be the Lord's people." 2 Kings, 11:17. God's right to men is
not based on any conventional arrangement between him and them. It is
original and absolute. "All souls are mine." "It is he that made us,
and not we ourselves, we are his people." It is however their
indispensable duty, as rational and moral creatures, to recognise that
relation which by a divine constitution they sustain to their Creator;
and to give all the security which he requires, that they will be his
true and faithful subjects. It is perfectly reasonable that
intelligent beings governed by moral laws, should give their consent
to that constitution under which Infinite Wisdom has placed them, and
swear allegiance to the "Lord of the whole earth," by whom it is
administered. There is something analogous to this in the constitution
of human governments. Nations usually require an oath of allegiance in
order to citizenship. And though the principle has been wickedly
misapplied, by requiring of men oaths of fidelity to governments that
are not in a state of voluntary subjection to the Lord and his
Anointed, yet the fact that they do so, demonstrates that men have
naturally, some sense of the duty of covenanting (Thomas Sproul, The
Duty of Social Covenanting Illustrated and Enforced, www.covenanter.org).

Though heathen nations, by the light of nature, understand that they
have an obligation to fulfil God's law, and to act responsibly, as
both individuals and societies, they, nevertheless, pervert this
precious truth into a means whereby they might attain to their own
selfish ends. Thankfully God, in His omnipotent power will change all
that.

Sproul continues:

In support of this position we adduce the very remarkable prophecy in
Isaiah 19:18 21, "In that day shall five cities in the land of Egypt
speak the language of Canaan, and swear to the Lord of hosts In that
day shall there be an altar to the Lord in the midst of the land of
Egypt and the Lord shall be known to Egypt, and the Egyptians shall
know the Lord in that day, and shall do sacrifice and oblation; yea
they shall vow a vow unto the Lord and perform it." Without examining
minutely into the precise time and circumstances of the fulfilment of
this prophecy, it is sufficient for our present purpose to show, that
it refers to a time yet future, and of course under the New Testament
dispensation. No "altar has yet been erected to the Lord in the land
of Egypt" "the Egyptians have not yet known the Lord nor done
sacrifice and oblation." As the prophecy is yet to be fulfilled; so
the promise connected with it remains to be performed. When "the great
city which spiritually is called Egypt," Rev. 11:8, shall have "an
altar to the Lord" in its midst and a "pillar to the Lord at its
border" the worship of God established in its purity in the church and
the law of the Lord made the main "pillar" of the political
superstructure when the inhabitants of the city shall do sacrifice and
oblation then five cities "the cities of the nations," Rev. 16:19,
"shall swear to the Lord of hosts." These predictions containing
promises of good to the subjects of them are preceptive. What God has
said they shall do, he commands them to perform. It is the duty of not
only five cities of mystical Egypt, but of all its cities of all the
cities and kingdoms on the face of the earth to swear to the Lord of
hosts to vow a vow and perform it. And in this way will "the kingdoms
of this world become the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ, and
he shall reign for ever and ever (Thomas Sproul, The Duty of Social
Covenanting Illustrated and Enforced, www.covenanter.org).

Thus, Egypt and most other political corporations (cities, provinces,
nations etc.) of this world will eventually repent, covenant, and bow
the knee to our Lord and King. Those who refuse will be destroyed. One
way or the other these moral persons will be brought to do what they
ought to have been doing all along subjecting themselves, for
conscience sake, to the King of kings and the Lord of lords.

Next, Pastor David Scott explains the Biblical concept of a moral person:

1. Ecclesiastical and national societies are moral persons.***By a
moral person I mean that each of these kinds of society has an
understanding and a will of its own, by which it perceives,
deliberates, determines and acts.*** An individual person, is one that
has the power of understanding and willing; ***the name moral person
is therefore applied to a society, having an understanding and a will
common to the whole body, by which, though made up of a vast number of
individuals, it possesses the power of knowing, deliberating,
determining, and acting. A moral person may enter into contracts and
covenant obligations; and these are as valid when entered into, as the
covenant obligations of individual persons.*** [Walter, this would
include corporations PRCE] Being moral persons, churches and nations
are capable of entering into covenant with God; and that it is their
duty to do so, I have demonstrated in the preceding section. Such
obligation, when constituted agreeably to the will of God, are
necessarily perpetual; for it is not the individuals merely of which
the society consists, but the society itself, as a moral person, that
covenants. In the case of personal covenanting, no one will question
that the covenant obligation extends throughout the whole life of the
individual; the same principle prevails in relation to social
covenanting: the obligation extends throughout the duration of the
moral person.

2. The church is a permanently existing body. It has undergone,
indeed, several changes in its external administration, but it is the
same now that it was when first constituted. The church in the
wilderness of Sinai is identical with the church in the days of Adam
and Eve, and continues still the same moral person in the nineteenth
century. The removal by death of individual members, does not destroy
the identity of the moral person, which remains unaffected by the
removal of a thousand generations. Covenant obligation entered into by
the church, in any given period, continues of perpetual obligation
throughout all succeeding generations, and that too, on the recognized
principle that the church continues the same moral person.

3. National society does not possess an undying constitution like that
of the church, it may be dissolved; and history presents a vast number
of instances of the entire dissolution of nations. But the obligation
created by national covenanting, extends throughout the duration of
the society, because it is a moral person; and if the perpetuity of
the obligation may be limited, it is limited only by the moral person
ceasing to exist (David Scott, Distinctive Principles of the Reformed
Presbyterian Church, pp. 61 63, 1841, emphases added).

Add to this the teaching of Thomas Houston where he further explains
the nature of federal obligations:

The principle of continued or transmissible federal obligation is not
liable to the objections that have been urged against it, and is no
novelty. We do not make our ancestors a sort of federal head as Adam
was to the human family, when we allege that our posterity are bound
by their engagements. This is altogether a misrepresentation of the
argument on the subject. The descending obligation of the public
covenants rests upon the essential character of organised society. It
is the same party in different stages of its existence that is bound
to moral obedience; and the obligation rests in all its plenitude upon
the community as the same moral agent, until the whole matter of the
engagement be fulfilled (Thomas Houston, A Memorial of Covenanting,
1857, p. 35, emphases added).

Finally, for a complete Scriptural defence of the necessity and duty
of social covenanting, we refer you to John Cunningham's book
entitled, "The Ordinance of Covenanting." Therein you may more
accurately learn the Scriptural justification necessary for making the
proper distinctions regarding personal and social covenanting, along
with the doctrine of the moral person, and the associated binding
obligations associated with such engagements. We deem it needless to
enter into Scriptural proof of propositions already admirably and
faithfully delivered to the church in writing. You will find
Cunningham's work replete with Scripture proof and accurate logic.

1 b. Can a moral person, if a fictional entity created by the unlawful
state, swear a covenant oath to the NC & SLC? Does the legal doctrine
entitled "conflict of laws" arise in causing the "doctrine of
impossibility?"

Can an unfaithful man enter into an honest covenant with a faithful
man? Yes. We proved this in our last post wherein we showed Abraham
and Jacob entering into lawful covenants with unfaithful men.

Can a "group" or "unlawful association" of unfaithful and tyrannical
men elected by the people, enter into an honest agreement with a
faithful group of people. Yes, we also proved this in our last post,
wherein we demonstrated that Solomon, on behalf of Israel, entered
into a commercial contract with Hiram (an unfaithful, though, at that
time, peaceful king).

Likewise, a corporation may lawfully (i. e. equitably and honestly) be
created by an unlawful state where and when no unlawful obligations
are imposed by the unlawful state upon that corporation. The fact that
the state is tyrannical does not mean that they are incapable of
transacting honest business or covenants. If articles of
incorporation, as required by an unlawful state, do not demand an
unlawful oath of allegiance, sinful terms of association, or sinfully
entangle a moral person (such as in the case of a covenanted church,
in violation of previous lawful covenants, unlawfully entangling
itself with an unlawful and tyrannical state), then what sin has been
committed by such an incorporation? There is neither conflict of laws,
nor any problem relating to the doctrine of impossibility, when the
agreement between the state and the corporation is inherently lawful
(according to God's law) as to its specific terms and conditions.
Clearly, if the terms and conditions of such an incorporation is not
inherently lawful (i.e. inequitable or dishonest), no moral person
(whether individual, corporation, church or nation) may enter into
such an agreement without sin."

Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.